create_remediationsource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds a permission requirement and clarifies that the input format matches export_remediationsource output. The overwrite behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful context: creation, format compatibility, and the missing import endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create operation with a nested definition object, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: permission, input format, and an export reference for constructing the definition. It does not mention return values, but with no output schema and a straightforward create action, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by telling agents that the definition can be sourced directly from export_remediationsource output. This is a practical semantic pointer beyond the schema's 'REST API format' label.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a RemediationSource via REST API from a full definition dict.' It clearly identifies the operation and the input style, and it differentiates itself from related tools by noting the export-format compatibility and the absence of an LM Exchange import endpoint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the write-permission prerequisite and explicitly says RemediationSources have no LM Exchange import endpoint, which routes agents away from an import alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with update_remediationsource, but 'create' vs. 'update' is self-evident from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.